A64002:899
The riches of Gods love unto the vessels of mercy, consistent with his absolute…The riches of Gods love unto the vessells of mercy, consistent with his absolute…
The riches of Gods love unto the vessels of mercy, consistent with his absolute hatred or reprobation of the vessels of wrath, or, An answer unto a book entitled, Gods love unto mankind ... in two books, the first being a refutation of the said book, as it was presented in manuscript by Mr Hord unto Sir Nath. Rich., the second being an examination of certain passages inserted into M. Hord's discourse (formerly answered) by an author that conceals his name, but was supposed to be Mr Mason ... / by ... William Twice ... ; whereunto are annexed two tractates of the same author in answer unto D.H. ... ; together with a vindication of D. Twice from the exceptions of Mr John Goodwin in his Redemption redeemed, by Henry Jeans ...The riches of Gods love unto the vessells of mercy, consistent with his absolute hatred or reprobation of the vessells of wrath, or, An answer unto a book entituled, Gods love unto mankind ... in two bookes, the first being a refutation of the said booke, as it was presented in manuscript by Mr Hord unto Sir Nath. Rich., the second being an examination of certain passages inserted into M. Hords discourse (formerly answered) by an author that conceales his name, but was supposed to be Mr Mason ... / by ... William Twisse ... ; whereunto are annexed two tractates of the same author in answer unto D.H. ... ; together with a vindication of D. Twisse from the exceptions of Mr John Goodwin in his Redemption redeemed, by Henry Jeanes ...
Oxford: printed by L.L. and H.H. for Tho. Robinson, 1653
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Where we have a manifest example of the great difference of the objects of Gods will; the one what Gods will was, that Pharaoh ought to do; and the other what his will was should be done by him: the letting of Israel go, was that which Pharaoh ought to do by the will of God, but the not letting of Israel go by Pharaoh, was that which God willed should come to pass; And why doth not this Author take boldness to censure these proceedings of the Lord with Pharaoh as hypocritical proceedings? The same spirit will serve the turn for both, though not without betraying as much judgement as honesty. In the like sort, it might be urged of the very elect, as of the reprobate, for the very elect are not always converted at the first hearing of the Gospel, nor till the time God hath appointed for their effectual vocation: yet from their first hearing of the Gospel, this command is made unto them, and thereby is signified Gods will that they ought to believe it, yet is it not Gods will that they shall believe, and be converted until the time that God hath appointed. That which in my judgement is more to the purpose is this, that by commanding to believe, he supposeth them at least in pretence to be endued with a power to believe; but then say I in like manner, he supposeth them to be indifferent to believe or not to believe, as they will, that is either to yield or else to resist; now this is indifferent to be objected as well against election, as against reprobation: For like as we say it cannot be that the reprobate should believe de facto, so we say it cannot be, that the elect should not belief at that time, de facto, which God hath appointed for their effectual conversion. And what advantage this Author can hence work to himself, I will be ready to take into consideration, as soon as it is offered. So that hitherto I hope, I have freed the divine course maintained by us, from all just imputation of imposture and dissimulation: let him look to it how he can clear his conscience from the impiety of his crimination. I come to the Second.
Where we have a manifest example of the great difference of the objects of Gods will; the one what Gods will was, that Pharaoh ought to doe; and the other what his will was should be done by him: the letting of Israell goe, was that which Pharaoh ought to doe by the will of God, but the not letting of Israell goe by Pharaoh, was that which God willed should come to passe; And why doth not this Author take boldnesse to censure these proceedings of the Lord with Pharaoh as hypocriticall proceedings? The same spirit will serve the turne for both, though not without betraying as much judgement as honesty. In the like sort, it might be urged of the very elect, as of the reprobate, for the very elect are not alwaies converted at the first hearing of the Gospell, nor till the time God hath appoynted for their effectuall vocation: yet from their first hearing of the Gospell, this command is made unto them, and thereby is signified Gods will that they ought to believe it, yet is it not Gods will that they shall believe, and be converted untill the time that God hath appoynted. That which in my judgement is more to the purpose is this, that by commanding to believe, he supposeth them at least in pretence to be indued with a power to believe; but then say I in like manner, he supposeth them to be indifferent to believe or not to believe, as they will, that is either to yeeld or else to resist; now this is indifferent to be objected as well against election, as against reprobation: For like as wee say it cannot be that the reprobate should believe de facto, so wee say it cannot be, that the elect should not beliefe at that time, de facto, which God hath appoynted for their effectuall conversion. And what advantage this Author can hence worke to himselfe, I will be ready to take into consideration, as soone as it is offered. So that hitherto I hope, I have freed the divine course maintained by us, from all just imputation of imposture and dissimulation: let him looke to it how he can cleare his conscience from the impiety of his crimination. I come to the Second.